# C_2016260EN.01002601.xml

| 18.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Siracusa (Italy) lodged on 28 April 2016 — Enzo di Maura v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale di Siracusa

(Case C-246/16)

(2016/C 260/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Siracusa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Enzo di Maura

Applicant:

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale di Siracusa

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Having regard to Article 11(C)(1) and the second sentence of Article 20(1)(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) in relation to the downward adjustment of the taxable amount and the adjustment of the VAT charged on taxable transactions in cases where the consideration agreed by the parties remains totally or partially unpaid, is it compatible with the principles of proportionality and effectiveness guaranteed by the TFEU, and the principle of neutrality that governs the application of VAT, to impose limits that make it impossible or excessively costly — in terms of time too, in connection with the unforeseeable duration of an insolvency procedure — for the taxable person to recover the tax on the consideration which remains totally or partially unpaid? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Having regard to Article 11(C)(1) and the second sentence of Article 20(1)(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) in relation to the downward adjustment of the taxable amount and the adjustment of the VAT charged on taxable transactions in cases where the consideration agreed by the parties remains totally or partially unpaid, is it compatible with the principles of proportionality and effectiveness guaranteed by the TFEU, and the principle of neutrality that governs the application of VAT, to impose limits that make it impossible or excessively costly — in terms of time too, in connection with the unforeseeable duration of an insolvency procedure — for the taxable person to recover the tax on the consideration which remains totally or partially unpaid?

1

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it compatible with the principles set out above that a provision — such as Article 26(2) of Presidential Decree No 633/1972, in the version in force before the amendments introduced by Article 1(126) and (127) of Law No 208 of 28 December 2015 — makes the right to recover the tax contingent on proof that insolvency procedures have previously been unsuccessfully conducted, that is to say, in accordance with case-law and the practice of the tax authority of the EU Member State, following definitive failure to distribute the assets, or, failing that, a final decision closing the insolvency procedure, even where such procedures may reasonably be deemed to be uneconomic because of the amount of the claim, the prospects of recovery and the costs of the insolvency procedures and given that, in any event, those conditions could apply years after the date of opening of the insolvency? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it compatible with the principles set out above that a provision — such as Article 26(2) of Presidential Decree No 633/1972, in the version in force before the amendments introduced by Article 1(126) and (127) of Law No 208 of 28 December 2015 — makes the right to recover the tax contingent on proof that insolvency procedures have previously been unsuccessfully conducted, that is to say, in accordance with case-law and the practice of the tax authority of the EU Member State, following definitive failure to distribute the assets, or, failing that, a final decision closing the insolvency procedure, even where such procedures may reasonably be deemed to be uneconomic because of the amount of the claim, the prospects of recovery and the costs of the insolvency procedures and given that, in any event, those conditions could apply years after the date of opening of the insolvency?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

1

---